At one level, this is actually true. The WHO supports women's reproductive rights, access to abortion, contraception and gay rights which are opposed by many people in the U.S. of voting age, and the difference in support inside WHO and in the U.S. does ignore the massive financial dependency on the U.S. funding.

This isn't actually a new thing. Aid has always begged the question: is the aid blind, or is the aid seen as an arm of foreign policy? Agencies like the world bank definitely put requirements on recipient of financial aid, like liberalising markets, and removing labor laws favouring unionisation.

"treat us like dirt" is hyperbole. I get that the money is not received with thanks, and I get that the agencies don't reflect U.S. culture or goals.

So I guess I agree with you a lot. The point of difference is how much it matters. You clearly think the principle goal should be the U.S. foreign policy outcome. I am less certain. When moral majority religious right is in power, defunding contraception and abortion in Africa happens. Which consequently leads to a rise in child poverty, mortality and other problems. Melinda Gates funding initiatives here were at odds with the U.S. Government for some periods of time. I do not like the dependency on private benificence.

I certainly think the rest of the world should pick up the funding pace, but I worry the shift in geopolitics here will turn out to be net-negative for the U.S. -certainly, in respect of womens reproductive rights I think thats a good thing (because of the extreme variability/volatility in the U.S. agenda here) but in other ways it may not be: Donor economies with less ethical basis may now demand votes in other contexts to support them. You're handing soft-power to other people. Are you sure you want to do that?

The U.S. may lose influence. If you are a WW1 era protectionist/isolationist, thats a good thing. I am not, I suspect you aren't either. But maybe you are?